/lit/ - Literature

>>13609847
>Web novels are based if you can get past the fanfic tier writing
Why read poorly written smut when I can read good smut instead?

I know I shouldn't be taking this shit seriously but I'll bite.
>Shakyamuni (maybe)
>toss-up between reading, hiking, and weeb shit
>snow country
>ex-Marxist, now a disillusioned "right-winger" and turning to faith over worldly politics

faggotry and cancer, as far as the eye can see.

>>9608576
>has any academic/"intelligent"
>theologist
With your ignorance self-demonstrated in the first phrase, I am sure you wouldn't recognize it if you saw it

>>9525902
Either you're retarded or...
No, you;re just retarded
I wrote
>name a cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously masculine that is not subject to the Sorites Paradox
>a cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously masculine
>cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously
>unambiguously
And now you are PROUD of the fact that you have proven ther is no such thing as if you showed me!
When, in fact, you keep proving my point.
>You still don't get what I'm talking about at all. You still think that the abstract concepts of masculinity and femininity are synonymous with biological sex
No, moron, I have been saying *the opposite*. You're just too stupid to grasp it.
In China the traditional dress for upper-class men is, essentially, a long dress (and with long hair and long, painted fingernails) and the traditional dress for women is a jacket and trousers. The opposite of 'unambiguous'.
But, and here is the point *again*, because Chinese woman in traditional dress dropped into Victorian England is obviously still a woman and still feminine
>fucking wait for it
that means the argument 'gender is a social construct' is meaningless because if "gender" WAS such then cross-cultural expectations would demand that she be seen and treated as a man. Which she wouldn't be. Because "gender" is not 'a social construct'.

>>9147295
Yup
Its official
You're retarded

>>9113832
>http://thepoliticalinformer.com/predatory-price-cutting/
Read it - it is a bit of theory and then this comment
>"Standard Oil most likely didn't use predatory price cutting..."
which links to other speculation.
The actual congressional testimony, however, *demonstrated* that Standard Oil *did* use predatory price cutting.
so - bullshit
>https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil
Yet more theorizing that predatory price cutting is 'too risky' in the abstract, ignoring the case law that demonstrates it happened.
>https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company/
*MORE* discussion of why predatory pricing is a bad idea while ignoring the evidence it happened.
So oyu think a group of links to Objectivist blogs that all use the exact same non-evidentiary sources to say the exact same thing that ignores the facts is a 'debunking'?
No wonder you're a Libertarian - you're retarded!

>>8922234
It was published in 1957, during the period of the greatest economic expansion in world history! The primary audience for the book was HS and college-age readers, none of whom had any clear memories of the WWII years, let alone the Great Depression!

>>8661409
My argument
>it is wrong to kill humans because they are moral *agents*
>Killing animals humanely is acceptable because they are only moral patients
It is a simple concept, yet after repeating it you can't seem to grasp it.
>I do love that you obviously hit the first link on google after finally looking it up